Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research

Definition and Medical Outcome Assessment

  1. Ann Schluederberg, ScD;
  2. Stephen E. Straus, MD;
  3. Phillip Peterson, MD;
  4. Susan Blumenthal, MD;
  5. Anthony L. Komaroff, MD;
  6. Susan B. Spring, PhD;
  7. Alan Landay, MD; and
  8. Dedra Buchwald, MD
    • Current Author Addresses: Drs. Schluederberg and Spring: Virology Branch, DMID, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Room 3A-16, Solar Building, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892.

      Dr. Straus: Laboratory of Clinical Investigation, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Building 10, Room 11N-250, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892.

      Dr. Peterson: Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Hennepin County Medical Center, University of Minnesota, 701 Park Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55415.

      Dr. Blumenthal: Behavioral Medicine Program, National Institute of Mental Health, ADAMHA, Parklawn Building, Room 11C-06, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

      Dr. Komaroff: Division of General Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115.

      Dr. Landay: Department of Immunology/Microbiology, Rush University Medical Center, 1753 West Congress Park, Room 1113 Jelke, Chicago, IL 60612.

      Dr. Buchwald: Department of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, 325 Ninth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.

    Abstract

    ▪A workshop was held 18 to 19 March 1991 at the National Institutes of Health to address critical issues in research concerning the chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Case definition, confounding diagnoses, and medical outcome assessment by laboratory and other means were considered from the perspectives of key medical specialties involved in CFS research. It was recommended that published Centers for Disease Control (CDC) case-definition criteria be modified to exclude fewer patients from analysis because of a history of psychiatric disorder.

    Specific recommendations were made concerning the inclusion or exclusion of other major confounding diagnoses, and a standard panel of laboratory tests was specified for initial patient evaluation. The workshop emphasized the importance of recognizing other conditions that could explain the patient's symptoms and that may be treatable. It was viewed as essential for the investigator to screen for psychiatric disorder using a combination of self-report instruments followed by at least one structured interview to identify patients who should be excluded from studies or considered as a separate subgroup in data analysis. Because CFS is not a homogeneous abnormality and because there is no single pathogenic mechanism, research progress may depend upon delineation of these and other patient subgroups for separate data analysis.

    Despite preliminary data, no physical finding or laboratory test was deemed confirmatory of the diagnosis of CFS. For assessment of clinical status, investigators must rely on the use of standardized instruments for patient self-reporting of fatigue, mood disturbance, functional status, sleep disorder, global well-being, and pain. Further research is needed to develop better instruments for quantifying these domains in patients with CFS.

    Article and Author Information

    • From the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland; the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois; and Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Washington. For current author addresses, see end of text.

    • Requests for Reprints: Ann Schluederberg, ScD; Virology Branch, DMID, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Room 3A-16, Solar Building, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    « Previous | Next Article »Table of Contents